So, extension block is similar with LN/other side-chain ? It's good idea as long as miners/community support it and have been tested throughly, so another incident such as lots BU nodes crashed won't happen.But, i wonder if it have privacy/decentralization concern/risk such as what happen with LN, especially with lots of FUD around it.

though extension blocks is another backdoor implementation.. it still does not address the issues of native key users.

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.Don't take any information given on this forum on face value. Please do your own due diligence & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. If you wish to seek legal FACTUAL advice, then seek the guidance of a LEGAL specialist.

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them. Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them. Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them. Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

if somthing "kills" miners its toxic to bitcoin...

if bitcoin is secured by the incentive to mine 2.5BTC every time minutes then it is very INSECURE

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them. Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

if somthing "kills" miners its toxic to bitcoin...

if bitcoin is secured by the incentive to mine 2.5BTC every time minutes then it is very INSECURE

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transactionis greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transactionis greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

It actually does not need a block limit. Miners can dynamically produce their own block sizes to cope with mempool transaction pool demand pressure and by artificially delaying lower paying transactions fees. If bitcoin price rockets out of the solar system, big blocks full of 1 sat transaction fees and no coinbase reward will work perfectly fine.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transactionis greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

Seems like there could be an enforced minimal fee to prevent spam and past that a sliding schedule that controls how soon the transaction gets put in a block. While it would be artificial it could increase fee revenue. After all why should buying a car and driving it off the lot be the same as buying a cup of coffee? If you needed quicker confirmation you should pay a higher fee for that.

There are several dynamics that can be played around with:1) Size of transaction --- basically what we have now ... if you use a lot of data it costs more2) Speed of the transaction --- Seems logically that there should be a fee schedule and low fee payers simply wait longer even if the wait is artificial.3) Amount of the transaction --- Maybe it does make sense to have some very small fee the scales on on transaction size. Say something like 0.01% <== Okay I know this is evil

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transactionis greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transactionis greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.

Conclusion,technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus.

best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transactionis greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money)pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper?

the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market.1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free.both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin.we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0.

You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit.

Conclusion,technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus.

I'm slightly confused on your position because it sounds like you agree with Peter that EC can solve the issues...on the other hand, Peteris advocating that we shouldnt and neednt have a limit that is below market demand, while you are saying blockszie cannot outpace adoption.I'm not sure if there's an actual disagreement or you're just describing a different property of the natural fee market.

We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.

i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after.my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO

That would be very good if that is true but if not then we will still be suffering from slow confirmation and many will shift to ethereum. But aside from increasing the blocksize I hope segwit could do something about the miner fees which is very high right now. But anyway if 4mb effective blocksize will be implemented successfully then it will be time for bitcoin to be used in shops not only online.

and many will shift from ethereum to tezos due to dictatorship and centralization not to mention the hardfork problem that leads to ethereum classic and also the unsecure javascript unverified code